NEW YORK (AP) ― Roger Clemens' lawyer wouldn't commit Sunday to having the pitcher give a deposition to congressional investigators, even as he said the seven-time Cy Young Award winner remains willing to testify in open session before a House committee investigating denials that he used performance-enhancing drugs.

http://wbztv.com/national/Roger.Clemens.Congress.2.628841.html

kevin57

01-14-2008, 12:56 PM

A question for the lawyers...or political experts...out there.

What practical difference would there be if RC testifies under oath in an open hearing instead of being deposed by investigators?

If he were to lie in either context, would he be liable to prosecution?

voodoochile

01-14-2008, 12:59 PM

So he's willing to lie to Congress, just not while under oath?

KyWhiSoxFan

01-14-2008, 03:35 PM

Surprise, surprise.

Anyone who saw his reaction in the World Series when Piazza's bat broke in half, with the head of the bat rolling toward the mound, Clemens picking it up and about ready to throw it at Piazza, could recognize steroid rage.

voodoochile

01-14-2008, 03:55 PM

Surprise, surprise.

Anyone who saw his reaction in the World Series when Piazza's bat broke in half, with the head of the bat rolling toward the mound, Clemens picking it up and about ready to throw it at Piazza, could recognize steroid rage.

Just to be picky, he actually did throw it in Piazza's general direction. Piazza actually stopped in his tracks on the baseline and looked at Roger like he was nuts.

KyWhiSoxFan

01-14-2008, 05:03 PM

Just to be picky, he actually did throw it in Piazza's general direction. Piazza actually stopped in his tracks on the baseline and looked at Roger like he was nuts.

Thanks, I forgot he actually threw it. I just knew there was something wrong when Clemens took two big bites out of the bat when he picked it up.

Paulwny

01-18-2008, 12:34 PM

This has to cost a few bucks.
From the NY Times:
Roger Clemens (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/roger_clemens/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has bolstered his legal team, hiring a powerhouse Washington lawyer, Lanny A. Breuer, who represented former President Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) during his impeachment hearings as well as numerous corporations that were the subject of Congressional investigations.

This has to cost a few bucks.
From the NY Times:
Roger Clemens (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/roger_clemens/index.html?inline=nyt-per) has bolstered his legal team, hiring a powerhouse Washington lawyer, Lanny A. Breuer, who represented former President Bill Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/bill_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) during his impeachment hearings as well as numerous corporations that were the subject of Congressional investigations.

What practical difference would there be if RC testifies under oath in an open hearing instead of being deposed by investigators?

If he were to lie in either context, would he be liable to prosecution?

Yes he would. A congressional deposition is under oath; all depositions are under oath.

The pratical difference is that Clemens would not be subject to slightly differently worded questions on different days. It's a fairly common trap; ask a set of questions one day under oath and ask a similar set of questions another day under oath. Then, hope the person being deposed suffers a slip of the tongue or something.

My guess is that Clemens is stuck in some sort of gray area and that for this to come out in his favor he needs to not get caught in some sort of trap like that. Probably a good move on his part.